[1] Lawrence David Shufflebotham (Mr Shufflebotham) was sentenced by Judge Garland in the District Court to three years’ imprisonment in relation to seven charges:1

(a) receiving a car door worth less than $500;2

1 New Zealand Police v Shufflebotham [2015] NZDC 19540.
2 Crimes Act 1961, ss 246 and 247.

SHUFFLEBOTHAM v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 3114 [8 December 2015]

(b) unlawfully taking a motor vehicle;3

(c) driving whilst disqualified;4

(d) dangerous driving;5

(e) unlawful possession of ammunition;6

(f) possession of methamphetamine;7 and

(g) failing to stop for red and blue flashing lights.8

[2] Mr Shufflebotham now appeals against the sentence imposed. The appeal is advanced on the following grounds:

1.The end sentence of three years was manifestly excessive, and the totality principle was applicable.

2.The uplift of 12 months for previous convictions was too high, in conjunction with the three months uplift for offending while on release conditions. The total uplift of 15 months was disproportionate to the overall sentence.

3.Mr Shufflebotham should have received a full discount of 25 per cent for his early guilty pleas, rather than the ten months awarded.

[3] The Crown opposes the appeal. Its essential thesis is that the District Court

Judge has neither erred in law nor imposed a manifestly excessive end sentence.

Facts

[4] Mr Shufflebotham pleaded guilty to all of the charges. I adopt the factual account of the offending given by Judge Garland:

3      Section 226(1)(a).
4      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(a) and 32(3).
5      Section 35(1)(b).
6      Arms Act 1983, s 45(1).
7      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 7(1)(a) and 7(2).
8      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 52(1)(c), 52(3) and 52(5).

[3] The facts relating to your offending are as follows. Late in April of this year the victim had his Toyota motor vehicle stolen from his home address in Belfast. At about 7.00 pm on 4 May you sold a car door from that stolen motor vehicle. You claimed you got the door off an associate and you claimed that you were unaware that it was stolen. Obviously now that you pleaded to that charge, you have accepted that you were reckless, you acted with reckless intent.

[4] Turning now to deal with the September matters. Between 28 August and 29 August this year a Toyota Hilux was stolen from a house in Rolleston by you. That Hilux truck was worth $8000. At about 2.00 am on 4
September this year you were found driving the Toyota Hilux on Anzac
Drive in Christchurch. At the time you were a disqualified driver. You were observed by police on Anzac Drive heading towards Travis Road. Police
activated their red…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Shufflebotham v Police

Details

AGLC: Shufflebotham v Police [2015] NZHC 3114
Case: [2015] NZHC 3114
Decision Date: 8 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lawrence David Shufflebotham (the appellant) was sentenced in the District Court to three years' imprisonment for seven charges, including receiving stolen property, unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, driving while disqualified, dangerous driving, unlawful possession of ammunition, possession of methamphetamine, and failing to stop for red and blue flashing lights. The appellant now appeals the sentence imposed by the District Court Judge, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the uplift for previous convictions and the discount for early guilty pleas were disproportionate. The Crown opposes the appeal, maintaining that the District Court Judge neither erred in law nor imposed a manifestly excessive sentence.

The High Court considered whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive and whether the uplift for previous convictions and the discount for early guilty pleas were proportionate. The Court found that the starting point for the lead offences was appropriate and that the uplift for previous convictions was proportionate to the starting point. The Court also found that the discount for the early guilty pleas was sufficient, given the strength of the prosecution case and the benefit to the administration of justice. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed was within the range that could be properly justified by accepted sentencing principles and dismissed the appeal.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence imposed by the District Court. The appellant was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, with the terms to be served concurrently. The appellant was also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for a period of two years, commencing from 8 April 2016, and was convicted and discharged on the charge of failing to stop.

Orders